Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

This week, readers were given fresh insights from UBS (read: here & here), highlighting the explosive surge in data center investments. As we've noted before, one asset manager—backing a multi-billion-dollar AI data center project in Texas—described to us the current AI infrastructure buildout as a multi-year "sprint."

With hundreds of billions pouring into data center development—concentrated in Texas and the Heartland due to cheap land and reliable power—investors should be asking one critical question: how fast is AI adoption scaling across corporate America?

According to Goldman Sachs' latest AI Adoption Tracker for Q2 2025, the enterprise implementation of AI continues to expand, particularly across sectors most vulnerable to automation. At the same time, productivity gains are becoming more measurable, even as AI-related layoffs have yet to materialize. 

Analysts Jan Hatzius, Joseph Briggs, and others offered clients a clear snapshot of the current AI investment tsunami:

AI-related investment growth remains strong, particularly for semiconductor firms, where equity analysts expect revenue growth of 36% from current levels by the end of 2026. Since the release of ChatGPT, analysts have upgraded their end-2025 revenue projections for semiconductors by $200bn (0.7% of US GDP) and AI hardware enablers by $105bn (0.4%).

As for the AI adoption rate, analysts found that as of May, approximately 9.2% of U.S. firms reported using AI in the production of goods or services—up from 7.4% in 4Q24. 

The most significant quarter-over-quarter gains occurred in the education, information, finance, and professional services sectors.

"Large firms with 250+ employees continue to report the highest adoption rate (14.9%) while medium-sized firms with 100-249 employees reported the largest expected increase in adoption over the next 6 months (+4.7pp to 14.6%). Adoption rates have also accelerated among medium-sized firms with 150-249 employees," the analysts said. 

Certain subsectors—especially in computing, web hosting, and telecom—are seeing adoption rates exceed 30%. Broadcasting and telecommunications firms anticipate the largest adoption gains through the rest of 2025.

Given the increasing AI adoption rate, the analysts noted that AI's impact on employment metrics has been marginal:

AI's impact on the labor market remains limited and there is no sign of a significant impact on most labor market outcomes. AI-related job openings now account for 24% of all IT job openings and 1.5% of all job postings. AI has not been mentioned in major corporate layoff announcements in recent months and the unemployment rate for AI-exposed positions has reconciled with the broader unemployment rate.

However... 

We continue to observe large impacts on labor productivity in the limited areas where generative AI has been deployed. Academic studies imply a 23% average uplift to productivity, while company anecdotes imply similar efficiency gains of around 29%.

Here's what companies and trade organizations are saying about current and future AI adoption...

Ultimately, investors will need to see AI adoption across corporate America continue to climb in order to justify the massive infrastructure buildout.

The looming question now is: At what point does rising adoption trigger a wave of AI-driven layoffs?

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court has ruled that the city of Naples, Florida, can lawfully require a drag performance at this weekend’s Pride Fest event to be held indoors and restricted to adult audiences.

In a split June 6 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking local restrictions. The court found that Naples Pride, the nonprofit organizing the event, had waited too long to challenge the conditions after accepting the same terms in 2023 and 2024.

The majority concluded that the city’s decision to impose the restrictions was not based on the group’s viewpoint, but rather on public safety concerns. The judges also held that the performance venue—a city park—constitutes a “limited public forum,” where speech protections under the First Amendment are subject to greater regulation.

The court added that the performance could still go forward under the same conditions as in previous years—indoors and adults-only—and that the city had a strong argument that its rules were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu criticized the majority’s reasoning, arguing that the city’s restrictions were “undeniably viewpoint and content-based” and thus unconstitutional, regardless of whether the park is viewed as a traditional or limited public forum.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge John Steele issued a preliminary injunction barring Naples from enforcing the indoor and age-restriction requirements. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by the ACLU of Florida on behalf of Naples Pride, alleging violations of constitutional free speech rights.

Reacting to the 11th Circuit’s reversal, the ACLU of Florida called the decision “disappointing” and vowed to continue the legal fight. Naples Pride likewise criticized the ruling, but said it would comply with the restrictions, for now.

“We respect the rule of law and will comply with the restrictions—but we won’t pretend this is justice,” Callhan Soldavini, board member and corporate counsel for Naples Pride, said in a statement. “Righting the wrongs of injustice takes time, but make no mistake: we will keep fighting.”

The case now returns to the lower court, where Naples Pride’s claims for damages will proceed.

In response to the ruling, the Naples Police Department said on June 6 that the police would be on-site during the event to ensure public safety.

“As a result, the City may continue enforcing its event ordinance while the case proceeds,” the department said in a post on social media. “We remain committed to protecting public safety, upholding constitutional rights, and ensuring the safe use of public spaces.”

Meanwhile, the same court of appeals ruled in mid-May that a Florida restaurant known for hosting drag shows could continue hosting the performances pending further litigation in a case that challenges enforcement of the state’s Protection of Children Act.

The law prohibits the admission of children into live performances that Florida considers obscene for minors. However, the court found that the restrictions in the act were too vague as they applied to the shows held at the restaurant.

Authored by Milton Ezrati via The Epoch Times,

Anticipating what tactics Beijing might use against U.S. President Donald Trump amid trade negotiations, several media outlets here, in Europe, and elsewhere have begun to speculate that China will threaten to distance its economy and its trade from the dollar—de-dollarize in the popular parlance—and perhaps sell off its extensive holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

Neither act, however, is at all likely, certainly not as an immediate bargaining chip.

It is easy to see why commentators would seize on notions like de-dollarization. Beijing for years has sought to raise the yuan’s international profile, often at the expense of the U.S. dollar. In its wide-ranging Belt and Road Initiative, for instance, it often insists that arrangements and contracts are denominated in yuan and not dollars, as is customary elsewhere.

Beijing has promoted the idea of moving away from the dollar among the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank denominates loans and grants in yuan, not dollars. Beijing has contracted for large oil purchases in yuan, not dollars. Its extensive dealings with Russia dispense with the use of dollars. And the People’s Bank of China has aided the effort by promoting a digital yuan.

But Beijing is also well aware that China, as an export-dependent economy, must hold dollars to back its trading activities with most nations.

For all Beijing’s efforts to supplant the dollar with the yuan, the dollar nonetheless acts as a basis for 80 percent of the world’s import-export activity, even when Americans are not involved. The dollar has a presence in 90 percent of all currency transactions, compared with only 4 percent for the yuan.

China could shed the dollar and still have access to global trading and currency arrangements, but it would have to accept much less effective and efficient arrangements to do so.

In other words, de-dollarization would hurt China much more than it would hurt the United States, and both Beijing and Washington know this.

Nor is China likely to threaten the sale of its holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

There is no denying that China’s holdings are huge. Some estimates put the figure at just under $1 trillion, second only to Japan’s holdings of about $1.13 trillion. This would seem to give Beijing leverage, but all involved know that the sale of these holdings would deny China a liquid market in which to invest its necessary holdings of U.S. dollars.

Moreover, an extensive sale would depress the price of U.S. Treasury bonds, imposing losses on Beijing’s balance sheet at a time when China’s domestic economic troubles make such a loss especially hard to bear. To be sure, such a sell-off would hurt Washington, but it would hurt Beijing even more, and both sides know it.

Beijing also knows that China’s interests would suffer from the tendency for any of these steps to weaken the dollar’s foreign exchange value and strengthen the yuan. In these circumstances, China’s central authorities would do better to weaken the yuan’s foreign exchange value, especially against the dollar. Such an action would make Chinese goods cheaper to dollar-based buyers and accordingly offset some of the adverse pricing impact of existing and threatened U.S. tariffs.

Instead, the yuan has recently gained value against the dollar. Beijing could reverse this trend if it were to talk down the currency actively by publicly eschewing de-dollarization and any talk of selling off holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

It hardly warrants saying that matters today remain highly uncertain.

Trump’s next move is impossible to guess, as is Beijing’s.

For all the uncertainty, however, it is still possible to set aside all the talk of de-dollarization and asset sell-offs, for the very practical reasons outlined here and also because Beijing, in these ongoing negotiations, has zero interest in antagonizing Washington.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

A bank connected to leftwing billionaire Tom Steyer is giving loans to illegal immigrants using a financial loophole—claiming it’s a way to fight “systemic racism", according to the Daily Wire.

Beneficial State Bank, based in Oakland, California, offers loans to immigrants without legal status by using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) instead of Social Security numbers.

The bank says this is part of its mission to promote fairness. “Beneficial State Bank is committed to addressing financial inequalities that disproportionately affect communities of color, a result of centuries of systemic racism,” the bank said in its 2022 impact report.

“A key initiative is lending to immigrant customers who may not have Social Security numbers but possess Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers.” In 2022, it issued $25 million in auto loans to 707 ITIN borrowers

The Daily Wire writes that in 2023, the bank continued to push this strategy. “Because many financial institutions require social security numbers, people without them, such as recent immigrants to the United States, can face barriers to qualifying for the loan they need to purchase a car,” the report reads.

“The bank lends to customers with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, providing critical access to credit and expanding financial inclusion.” About 10% of its 16,000 auto loans are made this way.

The bank started by offering loans to undocumented immigrants through furniture stores, according to the Global Alliance for Banking on Values. It also lends to people with California AB 60 driver’s licenses, which are available to those who “are unable to provide proof of legal residence in the United States.”

Beneficial State Bank did not respond to questions about this. But it’s not the only bank making ITIN loans. Prysma Lending has issued over a billion dollars in these loans and hosted talks to help immigrants avoid deportation by using a “credible fear” interview.

This ITIN loan tactic also supports developments like Colony Ridge in Texas, which has been linked to illegal immigrants, including criminals.

Leaked emails from a Texas land developer show there’s a whole lending industry targeting illegal immigrants. One developer admitted, “we will not be able to sell our developments if each of our buyers have to have [social security numbers].”

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Citigroup reversed its policy requiring retail business clients to refrain from selling firearms to those who haven’t passed background checks, the bank announced in a June 3 statement.

Citigroup instituted the policy in March 2018. It also included restricting clients from selling high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, and selling guns to individuals under 21 years of age.

That policy has now changed. In the statement, Citibank said that following “recent Executive Orders and federal legislation that impact this area ... [it will] no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms.”

The bank said concerns were being raised about “fair access” to banking services, adding that the corporation is following regulatory developments, presidential executive orders, and federal legislation under the current Trump administration related to fair banking access.

“In light of those developments, we took an objective look at our policies and practices with the intent of striking the right balance between our commitment to fair and unbiased access to our products while continuing to manage all risks to the bank appropriately,” the bank added.

Furthermore, Citigroup said it will update the employee Code of Conduct and the Global Financial Access Policy, “to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion.”

The bank’s policy reversal follows President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Feb. 7 calling for a review of all policies, projects, rules, and government action under the Biden administration related to Second Amendment rights.

During the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos on Jan. 22, Trump said entities aligned with conservative causes are being discriminated against by banks, and asked the sector to change its ways.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,” Trump said, addressing Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I don’t know if the regulators mandated that, because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie [Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO] and everybody, I hope you open your banks to conservatives because what you’re doing is wrong.”

Protecting Gun Rights

Activist group March For Our Lives criticized Citigroup’s policy reversal as a “shameful decision” in a June 3 statement.

“Seven years ago, after 17 of my peers and teachers were murdered, Citi found the courage to say ‘no more’—no more financing gun sales to teenagers. Today, they’re saying our lives matter less than their politics,” said executive director Jackie Corin.

Citigroup’s March 2018 policy came after a man killed 17 individuals at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in February that year in one of the deadliest mass shooting incidents in American history.

Meanwhile, the Firearms Industry Trade Association welcomed Citigroup’s latest decision, the group said in a June 3 statement.

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president at the association, said they were “guardedly optimistic” about the bank’s announcement.

“We will see if this is a substantive change in policy or just a superficial change while Citigroup continues to discriminate in private beyond closed doors where it is harder for the public to detect.”

John Commerford, executive director at the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, hailed the Citigroup policy change in a June 4 Instagram post.

The NRA “welcomes the news that Citigroup has rescinded its discriminatory debanking policies targeting gun manufacturers and dealers. Citigroup and other banks were pressured by left-wing activists to implement these measures in an attempt to restrict the lawful sale of firearms,” he said.

Commerford called on the Senate to pass the Fair Access to Banking Act, a law aimed at preventing financial institutions from “denying banking services to constitutionally protected services.” The bill was introduced in the House and Senate in February and is under consideration by lawmakers.

Authored by Carl Deconinck via Brussels Signal,

The “vast majority” of new homes in England will soon be fitted with solar panels as standard, UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has confirmed.

Developers warned of added costs and bureaucratic hurdles.

The announcement, part of the forthcoming Future Homes Standard set for release this autumn, aimed to slash household energy bills and nudge the UK closer to its net-zero ambitions.

Miliband, speaking to the BBC on June 6, called the plan “just common sense,” claiming solar panels could save homeowners around £530 (€629) annually, based on current energy price caps

The British Government’s proposal mandated solar panels on almost all new builds, with “rare exceptions” for homes shaded by trees or otherwise impractical for solar generation.

Unlike the previous Conservative Party government plan, which required panels to cover 40 per cent of a building’s ground area or none at all, the ruling Labour Party’s approach insisted on at least some solar coverage, even if the 40 per cent target was not met.

Miliband insisted this flexibility would ensure near-universal adoption without letting developers off the hook.

We’re kickstarting a solar rooftop revolution.

All new-build houses will come with solar panels as standard.

Delivering lower bills, energy security, and tackling the climate crisis.https://t.co/wXHwZolpiO

According to the Home Builders Federation, which indicated support for solar integration, “burdensome” paperwork could slow down the government’s ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

Neil Jefferson, head of the Home Builders Federation, told the BBC that an estimated two in five new homes had solar panels and that the industry was “getting increasingly used to incorporating solar panels within the building of new homes”.

“The government just needs to take care to make sure that it does not prescribe and mandate to much on rooftops.

“If every single home needs to be applied for on an exemption basis that will slow up the delivery of desperately-needed new homes, that administration will be burdensome,” he said.

Solar Energy UK’s CEO Chris Hewett said there was a need for more trained installers to meet demand, a point echoed by industry voices calling for investment in skills to sustain this “rooftop revolution”.

Meanwhile, the government’s own figures suggested solar power, while growing from 42 per cent since 2024 and 160 per cent over the past decade, remained a minor player, trailing gas, wind and nuclear in the UK’s energy mix.

Developers estimated solar installations could add £3,000 (€3,560) to £4,000 (€4,750) to construction costs per building.

Miliband dismissed concerns that these would be passed onto buyers, claiming house prices would not rise.

The policy dovetailed with Labour’s broader green agenda, including relaxed planning rules for heat pumps and a £13.2 billion (€15.68 billion) insulation scheme.

The Climate Change Committee insisted near-total decarbonisation of housing was essential for the 2050 net-zero target, a goal Labour inherited from the Conservatives who appeared to have turned against it.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “impossible” without tanking living standards, while Reform UK wanted it scrapped entirely, citing higher energy bills.

Supporters, including Liberal Democrat MP Max Wilkinson, hailed the move as a win for both wallets and the planet.

Industry figures including Octopus Energy’s Nigel Banks claimed smart tech and storage could slash energy costs by up to 90 per cent for some households.

In a new report out last week Deutsche Bank analysts led by Edison Yu provided an update on the U.S. auto sector, noting that sales in May reached a seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR) of 15.7 million units.

This figure came in slightly below their estimate of approximately 15.9 million, a result they attributed to a natural moderation following the particularly strong auto buying seen in April. They also pointed out that there may have been some seasonal distortions at play, as the absolute number of vehicles sold in May—1.475 million—still came in higher than the 1.449 million reported in May 2024.

The analysts observed that Ford benefited from stronger-than-expected sales, driven by the continued success of its employee pricing strategy, which helped the company gain 160 basis points in market share. Toyota also performed well, picking up 130 basis points in market share.

Mid-month data suggested that average transaction prices (ATPs) for the industry would decline month-over-month to approximately $46,000, although prices remain up 1.8 percent compared to a year ago. Meanwhile, incentive spending was down 11.5 percent month-over-month, a signal that vehicle demand remains robust even as some price moderation occurs.

As for inventory levels, the Deutsche Bank team reported that they remained stable at 46 days’ supply exiting the month. This is unchanged from April and represents a modest two-day improvement compared to the previous year. Most of the Detroit 3 (D3) and Japanese 3 (J3) automakers saw relatively flat inventories on a month-over-month basis, suggesting that the overall supply environment remains balanced.

Recall, back in April, Deutsche Bank’s note painted a more cautionary picture, centered on the significant uncertainty facing automakers due to the imposition of tariffs.

Just a month and a half ago, the analysts highlighted that automakers were scrambling to adjust their pricing, incentives, and production strategies to cope with a 25% tariff on imported vehicles and parts—effective May 3. The bank warned that despite the possibility of a short-term suspension, investors should assume all imported vehicles were subject to the tariff regime.

The April commentary also described a patchwork of automaker responses: Tesla paused Model X and S sales to China, GM halted operations at its CAMI plant, while Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Subaru took varying measures like absorbing some price increases or stopping U.S. inventory shipments. Ford’s broad employee pricing discounts—cited again in the June note as driving its strong sales—were already seen as part of its tariff-mitigation strategy in April. The bank estimated Ford and GM could each see gross costs rise by over $10 billion, with EBIT hits in the range of $4–7 billion annually, highlighting the potential severity of the tariffs’ impact.

In both notes, Deutsche Bank remained cautious about the broader auto sector. In April, they expected that front-loaded consumer buying (ahead of price hikes) would bolster sales early in the year but that the second half would suffer as tariffs took effect, projecting 2025 U.S. sales at 15.4 million units—down from 16 million in 2024. Interestingly, the June update’s 15.7 million SAAR for May suggests a somewhat stronger-than-feared demand environment—at least in the near term—though the underlying uncertainties around trade policy likely remain.

In other words, the dust appears to be settling and the U.S. auto industry appears to have ridden out the storm and is normalizing somewhat...for now...

Via Middle East Eye

Israel has sold a record amount of debt in the US since its Gaza war erupted on October 7, 2023, according to a report by Bloomberg on Friday. 

The government of Israel’s US-based bond broker, Israel Bonds, says it has sold $5bn worth of debt in the last twenty months. The level of bond issuance is more than double that raised by Israel Bonds, in similar time periods previously.

Israeli banks in Tel Aviv, via FLASH90

Israel’s war on Gaza started after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel killed around 1,200 people. Israel responded by pummeling the Gaza Strip and invading it. A reported more than 54,000 people, mainly women and children, have been killed in the Israeli attacks, and the population is facing "imminent famine", the United Nations says. 

Israel Bonds is affiliated with Israel’s finance ministry and sells bonds inside the US to both retail and institutional investors. The starting price for non-tradable retail Israeli bonds is as low as $36. 

A five-year Israeli bond has a yield between 4.86 percent and 5.44 percent, according to the Bloomberg report. 

Along with its war on Gaza, Israel fought a devastating war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and launched widespread strikes on Syria. In 2024, it engaged in two rounds of direct missile and drone attacks with Iran. Israel’s financing needs have soared as it looks to fund its military.  

Local Israeli creditors, including deep-pocketed institutional ones, account for about 80 percent of the government’s lending overall. That leaves just twenty percent to come from international debt sales and what Israel Bonds sells in the US.

According to the group, local US governments at the state and county level are big buyers in places like New York, Texas, Ohio, and Illinois. 

Palm Beach County in Florida became one of the world's largest investors in Israeli Bonds in 2024, with about $700m of its $4.67bn portfolio invested there. 

Source: Bloomberg

Israel has faced widespread criticism for its war on Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes. Meanwhile, public opinion on Israel has turned sharply negative from France to Japan. 

However, in March 2024, Israel saw strong demand for its debt among international investors. It sold $8bn in international bonds. Israel enjoys investment-grade ratings from major credit ratings agencies.